|
Post by cv10 on May 30, 2018 22:10:20 GMT -6
The entire navy doesn't need to be preserved I think that there should be plenty of more recent hulls available for conversion. Speaking of preserving the entire navy, wouldn't it be cool if "scrapping" an elite ship (maybe one with multiple battles? involved in a notable battle?) gave you an option to preserve it as a museum to give +prestige instead of +cash? There's a event for that in RTW I, but I think its pretty rare.
|
|
tc27
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by tc27 on May 31, 2018 6:44:28 GMT -6
Would like to add my voice to those calling for some more player controller over composition of squadrons and fleets - ideally back to the OOB we had in the SAI games where managing the squadrons in the face of refits, training and damage repair was a big part of the game. The current mechanism for assigning ships to fleets and squadrons is pretty good to be fair so maybe we could have this as an optional feature (most of us wargamers are OOB fetishists).
Would be great to have more in depth naval treaties maybe with a bit of player involvement in the horsetrading around tonnage, type and gun calibers.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 31, 2018 8:06:09 GMT -6
Personally, I suspect that carrier conversions are going to be in a similar spot to extensive reconstructions in RtW - it's completed faster and is usually more economical in the short term than new construction, but new construction would give you a better ship and is probably more economical in the long term.
The 20 or so knots of a late predreadnought or early dreadnought is probably adequate for an early carrier - USS Langley was only capable of about 15.5, HMS Argus 20, and French Bearn 21.5 knots, after all. It's only in the 1930s that carriers really start to need to be capable of ~30 knots or be equipped with catapults to launch modern fully-loaded aircraft. Since it's unlikely that you'd be considering predreadnought or semidreadnought battleships for carrier conversion much after 1920 or early dreadnought battleships for carrier conversion much after 1925, that's probably ten to fifteen years where such a vessel would make an adequate fleet carrier. Not a great fleet carrier, mind you, but an adequate one.
Also, to the best of my knowledge, the Bogue-class escort carriers were only capable of about 18 knots and none of the other American or British escort carriers were good for much over 20 knots. Perhaps you meant the Saipan-class light carriers, or maybe one of the Japanese carriers?
It should be noted that Lexington, Saratoga, and the Independence-class carriers were converted while in a fairly incomplete state and so could receive fairly extensive design changes without requiring significant reconstruction. Furious and Eagle were converted while much closer to completion while Glorious and Courageous were converted after completion, and so were not as extensively redesigned (at least partly due to the cost of rebuilding the upper part of the ship), with the result that they had fairly small air wings for their size.
Steam catapults were a fairly late development, only being introduced in the 1950s, though I'm not aware of any particular reason why they could not have been developed earlier. However, gunpowder catapults and flywheel catapults had been under development or in service since at least the '20s, and weight-and-derrick catapults since the early days of aviation.
RATO systems were under development from the '20s, but I don't think any entered service before WWII.
The Escort series of carriers could barely make about 16.5 knots although theoretically they could do 18 knots. The light carriers, like the CVL-30 San Jacinto were based on light cruiser hulls, in this case the USS Newark. She could manage about 32 knots. Steam catapults were developed in 1945 and were first deployed in 1951. I don't see why someone could not research and develop them earlier. There were three kinds of catapults in WW2; the Type A, Type P and Type H. The Type A was first delivered in 1923 and was a float plane launcher. The Type P was a powder type launcher for battleships. The Type H was the hydraulic, the MK II was first used on the Yorktown and Wasp class ships.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on May 31, 2018 11:21:14 GMT -6
One thought that I recently had was the idea of uniformity bonuses, most likely to maintenance cost. Essentially, it'd be an abstraction of the easier logistics of supplying ships that had similarities in their construction, such as battery sizes or perhaps even tonnage. Of course, given the near constant arms race that goes on, it'd be another layer of choice: "Do I build my first set of BBs with the 13" guns I just unlocked, or stick with the 12" ones for the maintenance discount?"
Also, admins, do you think it'd be permissible to allow thread creation? There's alot of theorycrafting I'd like to do with the rest of the people on this board, but I'd rather not create a thread about RtW2 on the RtW1 board or fill this one up. We've already filled about two pages just on CV conversions from Bs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 13:46:33 GMT -6
One thought that I recently had was the idea of uniformity bonuses, most likely to maintenance cost. Essentially, it'd be an abstraction of the easier logistics of supplying ships that had similarities in their construction, such as battery sizes or perhaps even tonnage. Of course, given the near constant arms race that goes on, it'd be another layer of choice: "Do I build my first set of BBs with the 13" guns I just unlocked, or stick with the 12" ones for the maintenance discount?" Also, admins, do you think it'd be permissible to allow thread creation? There's alot of theorycrafting I'd like to do with the rest of the people on this board, but I'd rather not create a thread about RtW2 on the RtW1 board or fill this one up. We've already filled about two pages just on CV conversions from Bs. I would agree on that. Please allow creating threads, just for "clarity" reasons.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on May 31, 2018 16:05:56 GMT -6
Two things that I'd like to discuss:
-Fast Battleships - are there any changes incoming? If I understand correctly, line between BC and FBB blurred in 20-30s when the latter started to reach higher speeds. In game there is no real reason to build faster BBs. Maybe starting at some point fast BBs (those with speed 25kts and above) should be picked to same battle types as BCs?
-Torpedo calibre. In RTW1 it is automatic, but it often bugs out so maybe allow player to pick those from the list. After all, you may want to arm some ships with lower calibre than max available (for ex. escort DDs)
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on May 31, 2018 16:16:52 GMT -6
Speaking of preserving the entire navy, wouldn't it be cool if "scrapping" an elite ship (maybe one with multiple battles? involved in a notable battle?) gave you an option to preserve it as a museum to give +prestige instead of +cash? They should be careful with implementing this, as it could lead to balance issues. +Prestige is going to be worth more than a little bit of cash, as A: that's your score, and B: You can cash out prestige for additional budget in some events, and that additional budget is likely worth more than the returns for scrapping that ship. So if they implement something like this, there should be diminishing returns. Maybe something more like a "donation hold" option where ships still have to be maintained until someone submits a reasonable proposal to buy the ship. I would think that nations like the US would have a greater chance of preserving a ship while European nations would generally have a lesser chance of doing so. Doesn't RtW1 already do this? I've definitely gone to scrap a ship and had it converted to a museum ship and I'm fairly sure it provided +1 prestige (although my memory can be a bit dodge, and it's been a while since this happened). It felt infrequent enough to me that it wouldn't affect balance significantly. I do think having the option to do this for every ship wouldn't be appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on May 31, 2018 16:22:43 GMT -6
They should be careful with implementing this, as it could lead to balance issues. +Prestige is going to be worth more than a little bit of cash, as A: that's your score, and B: You can cash out prestige for additional budget in some events, and that additional budget is likely worth more than the returns for scrapping that ship. So if they implement something like this, there should be diminishing returns. Maybe something more like a "donation hold" option where ships still have to be maintained until someone submits a reasonable proposal to buy the ship. I would think that nations like the US would have a greater chance of preserving a ship while European nations would generally have a lesser chance of doing so. Doesn't RtW1 already do this? I've definitely gone to scrap a ship and had it converted to a museum ship and I'm fairly sure it provided +1 prestige (although my memory can be a bit dodge, and it's been a while since this happened). It felt infrequent enough to me that it wouldn't affect balance significantly. I do think having the option to do this for every ship wouldn't be appropriate. It's infrequent and random. You can get museum ships, but which ones can become museums really doesn't seem up to you. Particularly heroic or important ships get scrapped while an older ship which maybe was on the sidelines in a couple of battles becomes a museum. And it generally seems you can get about 1 museum ship maybe. I was thinking that the point I was commenting on was suggesting a replacement for the current system, which feels a bit inadequate.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 31, 2018 17:31:51 GMT -6
One thought that I recently had was the idea of uniformity bonuses, most likely to maintenance cost. Essentially, it'd be an abstraction of the easier logistics of supplying ships that had similarities in their construction, such as battery sizes or perhaps even tonnage. Of course, given the near constant arms race that goes on, it'd be another layer of choice: "Do I build my first set of BBs with the 13" guns I just unlocked, or stick with the 12" ones for the maintenance discount?" Also, admins, do you think it'd be permissible to allow thread creation? There's alot of theorycrafting I'd like to do with the rest of the people on this board, but I'd rather not create a thread about RtW2 on the RtW1 board or fill this one up. We've already filled about two pages just on CV conversions from Bs.
I just set this board so that members can now create new threads. Have fun!
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 31, 2018 19:17:36 GMT -6
It's infrequent and random. You can get museum ships, but which ones can become museums really doesn't seem up to you. Particularly heroic or important ships get scrapped while an older ship which maybe was on the sidelines in a couple of battles becomes a museum. I'll just go to the USS Enterprise (CV-6) museum ship, then, since obviously so famous/heroic/decorated a ship wouldn't have been scrapped while a much older battleship like USS Texas (BB-35) which did approximately nothing in the First World War and little more than shore bombardment in the Second was preserved.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 31, 2018 19:42:53 GMT -6
*notes we're on page NINE already*
Gosh, I wish we had some evidence that this thread was popular...
:]
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on May 31, 2018 21:21:50 GMT -6
*notes we're on page NINE already* Gosh, I wish we had some evidence that this thread was popular... :] Well, that's what happens when you have a niche product of quality, and dedicated fans. ^_^
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on May 31, 2018 21:44:17 GMT -6
It's infrequent and random. You can get museum ships, but which ones can become museums really doesn't seem up to you. Particularly heroic or important ships get scrapped while an older ship which maybe was on the sidelines in a couple of battles becomes a museum. I'll just go to the USS Enterprise (CV-6) museum ship, then, since obviously so famous/heroic/decorated a ship wouldn't have been scrapped while a much older battleship like USS Texas (BB-35) which did approximately nothing in the First World War and little more than shore bombardment in the Second was preserved. On the contrary look at Mikasa or Aurora. 2 very important ships in their respective navies which were preserved as museum ships. Actually, the USS Olympia was important for the Spanish-American war. The US also has the thing where states may want to keep the old ships named after them, as is the case with USS Texas. I know USS Enterprise was put on donation hold for years, but scrapped when there were no serious takers. I do think such a donation hold system would be more realistic and still result in the player having some choice in what ships get preserved. Maybe this could be put on top of the current system. Maybe the player could also choose a ship or two to preserve as a navy owned museum ship (which I think exist), where the player pays for the upkeep of the museum but gets some small benefits from doing so. I’d think small improvements in crew quality over time by inspiring enlistentments, with diminishing returns per ship, and larger and more important ships having better effects than smaller less important ships. And there you have it. 2 additional methods for a ship to be turned into a museum. But this is all discussion regarding a relatively unimportant aspect of the game, so I’m not sure if it would be worthwhile to implement.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 31, 2018 23:17:21 GMT -6
I'll just go to the USS Enterprise (CV-6) museum ship, then, since obviously so famous/heroic/decorated a ship wouldn't have been scrapped while a much older battleship like USS Texas (BB-35) which did approximately nothing in the First World War and little more than shore bombardment in the Second was preserved. On the contrary look at Mikasa or Aurora. 2 very important ships in their respective navies which were preserved as museum ships. Actually, the USS Olympia was important for the Spanish-American war. The US also has the thing where states may want to keep the old ships named after them, as is the case with USS Texas. I know USS Enterprise was put on donation hold for years, but scrapped when there were no serious takers. I do think such a donation hold system would be more realistic and still result in the player having some choice in what ships get preserved. Maybe this could be put on top of the current system. Maybe the player could also choose a ship or two to preserve as a navy owned museum ship (which I think exist), where the player pays for the upkeep of the museum but gets some small benefits from doing so. I’d think small improvements in crew quality over time by inspiring enlistentments, with diminishing returns per ship, and larger and more important ships having better effects than smaller less important ships. And there you have it. 2 additional methods for a ship to be turned into a museum. But this is all discussion regarding a relatively unimportant aspect of the game, so I’m not sure if it would be worthwhile to implement. IMO this also depends on these associated cost of keeping the ship as a museum. Having recently been on the Mikasa this month id say it does not look exceedingly expensive to maintain given that it has been permenantly grounded in cement and a sizeable amount of its internal machinery removed ( as far as what’s available to visitors, everything below deck is converted to display halls. The front turret barbette is definately gone and likely most of the machinery as well). The maintenance work don’t seem to be much more than what’s required of a comparable sized museum building. Where as on the other hand US museum ships like Missouri I believe are still internally intact and maintained as such?
|
|
|
Post by planetbrain on Jun 1, 2018 2:15:00 GMT -6
Sorry if this has been mentioned previously, but will radar emissions be detectable? I read that, later in the Guadalcanal campaign, the Japanese could detect that an enemy fleet/ship was in the area through radar emissions BEFORE they were themselves detected on radar.
|
|